This should be read in
conjunction with the policies, guidelines and instructions set-out for the
authors, editors, reviewers and referees. This policy applies to the NanoTrends
in particular and other relevant publications of the NSTC, and, any other
titles published with a partner organization in general.
Authorship
While determining the authorship, the prime principle
is to look for the person (s) who is the creator of thought/ embodied idea
(conception, design, execution, or analysis and interpretation of data).
Authors should ensure that all those who have made significant contributions
are given the opportunity to be graded as authors. Authors should be
practically involved in drafting the article, its revision and appraisal. Other
individuals who have also contributed to the study should be duly acknowledged.
Manuscripts should include a full list of the current
institutional affiliations of all authors, both academic and corporate.
The order in the authorship has to be a joint decision
of all the participating authors.
Some co-authors will be accountable for the entire
article, for instance those who provide critical data, write the manuscript, or
provide leadership to the junior fellows. Other co-authors may be responsible
for some specific contributions to a paper.
All authors should have access to final version of the
submitted manuscript, agree to its submission and take appropriate
responsibility for it. Any individual unwilling or unable to accept appropriate
responsibility for a manuscript shall not be held as a co-author.
Referees/ editors should contact the relevant editor
(s) and/ or the NanoTrends’ Publication Management Team, to intimate any
conflict of interest in advance of reviewing/ refereeing an article (e.g. being
a joint author or collaborator with one of the authors). It is implied that an
editor/ referee will not review/ referee a manuscript that is authored by
himself/ herself.
It is unethical to publish articles describing
essentially the same studies or results in more than one primary research
journal. Submitting the same article to more than one journal in parallel is
unethical and unacceptable.
Submission of manuscript to the NanoTrends for its
consideration of publication, implies that the manuscript is fee from any kind
of conflicts/ irregularities including those discussed above.
Research
Authors/ contributors have to refrain from using a
language style that does not match with the professional ethics of the
scientific/ technical journal.
Authors/ contributors should not consider the
NanoTrends as a medium for marketing/ publicity of any product or service of
their interests.
Authors/ contributors must not manipulate, falsify or
misrepresent data or the findings.
Authors/ Contributors must be honest in making claims
for the results and conclusions of their research.
Authors should their utmost efforts to avoid errors in
research and exercise due caution in presenting work for publication.
Source material of experiments and research results
should be recorded and preserved in a manner that permits verification
maintaining an audit trail by other scientists. In certain cases exceptions may
be appropriate to preserve privacy or patent protection Referencing
.
Authors should acknowledge the work of others, that has
been used or that has provided support/ inspiration in their research and cite
publications that have influenced the direction and course of their study.
Information gathered in private correspondence or
conversation should only be used with the explicit permission of the
individuals involved.
Information collected while providing confidential
services, such as refereeing research articles etc. should not be used without
the permission of the original author.
Handling cases of misconduct
No journal is competent to police such cases. We
believe that employers have the prime responsibility for ensuring their
researcher’s conduct and the ethical training.
NanoTrends, like other journals, do not have the
resources or legal legitimacy to investigate scientific misconduct.
However, Publication Management Team of the NanoTrends,
may seek advice/ information from a concerned referee or editorial board
member, in case it is comes/ brought to its notice, an evidence that trust has
been significantly compromised by an author’s or referee’s actions.
We may attempt to redress the matter by appropriate
corrections in the NanoTrends and if deemed fit may communicate (as per
NanoTrends norms) to the employers or funding agencies.
(In cases where aforesaid
instructions are found inadequate, NanoTrends envisages seeking of support
from/ recommends use of, the relevant guidelines as stipulated by the Council
of Science Editors (CSE). NanoTrends acknowledges the informational support
derived from the directions/ guidelines set- in by the CSE, in writing these
instructions).